Search

June 2009

30 June 2009

Normally ecologists dislike mass consumption. But when new appliances REDUCE use of electricity and water by half or more, maybe it's time to whip out the visa card?

According to Adame cited in Le Figaro, two thirds of the electricity consumed by French households is from electrical appliances. And, in the past ten years, European manufacturers have reduced energy use of appliances by half. New labelling requirements and "green" marketing campaigns are making energy use a selling point.

And it's not just electricity. The average water consumption of European washing machines has fallen from 120 to 40 litres in 25 years.

So, want to fight global warming?

Replace your old dryer, refrigerator, washing machine and dishwasher!

How to identify the new, energy and water efficient models? Check the energy label for A++.

22 June 2009

France has many fine qualities, but, sadly, the ability to conduct a reasoned and productive discussion about higher education is not one of them.

Consider “selection” in the universities.

The mere word is so explosive that Nicolas Sarkozy, Valérie Pécresse and Xavier Darcos refuse to pronounce it, while responsible people on the left will not hesitate to equate it with fascism.

For an outsider, this requires some explanation as anyone can see that higher education here is already highly selective, with elite grandes écoles for a tiny “happy few” who can afford preparatory classes, and underfunded, dysfunctional, striking universities(which kick half the students out anyway in the first year) for the bewildered masses. Selection not only exists; it permeates the system. It is, in fact, the raison d’être of the French elite.

Why then, this ridiculous pretense that “selection” in the universities will be the end to the republican ideal, democracy and life as we know it?

Or, asked a different way. Who benefits from the status quo? And how?

First, the elites.

Top positions in government and business are reserved for graduates of grandes écoles. University graduates are looked on with distrust bordering on contempt. This two-tier system confers a huge advantage on the elites whose children monopolize the grandes écoles. To preserve their superiority, they have every reason to defend the system as it is. That part is easy.

The mystery resides more with the left.

University professors know perfectly well (and will admit in private) that the first year is basically wasted. A shocking number of students lack adequate skills. Classes are overcrowded, chaotic, miserable. Half the student population will be forced to drop out. The quality of education suffers, as do students and teachers personally. Strikes, degradation of property and cancelled classes are common. (Fifteen weeks of canceled classes this year.) Professors rarely have office hours. Libraries are overcrowded and frequently closed. Even those students who manage to struggle through are likely to be unemployed or underemployed.

Why, then, does the left support this massive fraud against the children of the middle and lower middle classes?

Leaving ideology aside, what this huge and uncontrolled influx of “students” offers is numbers. Bodies. Flesh. Masses of young people to be taught translates into large numbers of teaching positions. Jobs—not for students—but for teachers. And, for teachers, (who would otherwise be unemployed themselves) this is clearly a strong argument for leaving things as they are…

But there is another great advantage to parking such huge numbers of 18-25 year olds in the public universities. Unemployment. Students are not officially unemployed. Throw them out of the universities and they hit the statistics. This hurts the government, left or right, whichever it happens to be. It is a brave government, indeed, that deliberately ups its youth unemployment numbers.

And then there is fear. Every Education Minister, left or right, that has attempted to deal with this problem has been forced to resign following massive demonstrations.

Of course, many parents, seeing the universities for the catastrophe they are, have decided to enroll their children in private vocational schools to learn useful skills that will lead to a job. These schools generally cost about 5000 euros a year, making a mockery ofthe “free” higher education argument favored by defenders of the current system.

Why has the French press not seized the chance to elucidate this very French mystery?

Doubly mysterious, indeed.

For info, a sample of articles about selection in the universities from Le Point:

Should wearing the burka in public spaces be outlawed? That is one of the questions under discussion.

Four years ago the Islamic scarf was banned in public schools. After initial controversy (and the expulsion of some Sikh children who refused to remove their turbans), the ban on ostensible religious symbols has quietly been enforced. But tempers smolder.

For many the burka symbolizes the oppression of women. Why is it spreading?

That is one of the questions the Parliamentary Commission has been asked to explore.

The official reason is that without the CNU’s centralized quality control, provincial universities might hire only their buddies.

While this could certainly happen, university presidents who indulged in such behavior would risk becoming famous for it, as would their universities. Students and faculty might be tempted to run away. Outsiders might mock those who remain. In a country that fears ridicule more than death itself, that’s a pretty strong deterrent.

Could there be another reason for the existence of this strange bureaucracy?

One possibility, of course, is that the bureaucracy exists because it exists (since the Liberation), and once that happens it is quite impossible to kill. (See the brilliant Parkinson on the expansion of the British naval bureaucracy as the fleet itself declined.)

Another possibility is that the CNU serves a useful purpose—even if it’s not the official stated purpose.

For one thing, PhD’s who fail to make the CNU’s list are not considered to be looking for university jobs, even if that’s what they do desperately day and night. This removes them most efficiently from the statistics of unemployed university professors.

For another, the CNU accords tremendous power to potentates in 74 official disciplines. That’s a lot of horse trading potential!!!Who wants to give up that?

It will be difficult to reform the university system without junking this relic.

So he's breaking new ground, this patriotic leftist, taking his show on the road.

And, clearly, the new administration approves.

Pre-taped segments broadcast during the performance include President Obama ORDERING a four star general to shave Colbert's hair off,Joseph Bidon warning troops not to give Colbert a gun, Sarah Palin asking if anyone's seen her son, Track, and President Clinton saying hi. Colbert interviews, among others, the Vice Prime Minister of Iraq and the general in command of 130,000 troops.

Colbert may be an improv master, This is not an improvised affair.

So tip of the hat to Stephen Colbert, his production team, Comedy Central, the USO and the hip new administration. And of course, to the young men and women in uniform, who, we hope, will soon be home.

11 June 2009

According to this morning's Figaro, Air France has known for some time that the Thales brand airspeed sensor was not reliable. (see full article in French here.)

In an article entitled : "Air France had already experienced incidents with the airspeed detector", Le Figaro lists other, similar incidents and notes that Air France had issued a recommendation in September 2007 to airlines to "replace these sensors with more reliable ones". In its defence, Le Figaro writes: "Air France points out that a 'manufacturer's recommendation leaves the operator complete liberty to apply it."

Corporate liability laws and practices are very different from one country to another. But as new revelations appear about serious safety risks that were known and not dealt with by corporate managers, this Air France/Airbus tragedy is very likely to change the boundaries.

Update June 25, 2009 It's starting. Information being released by a pilots' association called Eurocockpit shows both Airbus and Air France knew about the malfunctioning pitot tubes nearly a year ago with six different incidents reported. A maintenance crew to change the pitot tubes had been dispatched to wait for Flight 447. For more see Suspicions deepen over Air France Flight 447 on Charles Bremner's Weblog.

Airspeed information is crucial for pilots. When they discovered that pitot tubes would malfunction in certain weather conditions, why did manufacturer and airlines fail to take appropriate action?

08 June 2009

rating: 5 of 5 starsI was curious about this book because I wanted to understand more about the struggle for education in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Who is destroying schools and who is trying to educate their children? Three Cups of Tea is a fascinating and insightful introduction to a region about which most of us know basically nothing. Morteson himself is quite unique, and it is a pleasure spending time in his company.
The writing is clear if stylistically unremarkable, but I give this book the highest rating possible because it helps us to understand others and does so in a way that is both intelligent and profoundly humane.

07 June 2009

80% of new laws originate the E.U. yet nearly 60% of voters refused to participate?

Why?

“Democratic fatigue” is NOT the reason.

The real problem is that, at least here, elections fail to serve the function of democratic control.

The heart of any democracy is choice. Ideally, you choose a candidate based on his/her platform, evaluate the performance and decide whether or not to continue to place your trust in his/her representation.

But in the French European elections this is impossible.

First, YOU DON’T KNOW WHO YOUR CURRENT REPRESENTATIVES ARE AND HOW THEY VOTED. So you can’t decide whether to reward or punish them.

Second, THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEMSELVES DON’T CARE WHETHER THEIR OWN APPOINTEES DID A GOOD JOB (see today’s Le Figaro article on how the parties fail to take actual performance into account when naming politicians to lists).

Third, POLITICIANS’ CONTEMPT FOR EUROPE IS CONTAGEOUS Parties deliberately name politicians who have no intention of serving, a display of pure contempt for the E.U. which discourages and disgusts voters: why vote for someone who will never take office?

People are not dupes. They won’t vote if they know their vote is worthless. And, at present, sadly, this is for the major political parties, very nearly the case.